In article >, brink wrote:

>> If I get hit by a red light runner at a flawed intersection, the fact a
>> cop saw it or a picture was taken of it, isn't going to make me any less
>> hurt. However fixing the flaw so I am never hit will.

> I think the "flaw" in intersections when it comes to most RLRers is that the
> light is red and they don't want to stop. The only thing that would "solve"
> that problem is to make it not red for that driver. Of course, that makes
> it red for another driver, doesn't it?

99.9% of the intentional red light running I see is congalining and it
doesn't take any special gizmos to enforce, that is if cops actually
cared about it and didn't do it themselves.

> I agree that it would be nice to redesign roads to minimize traffic delays
> and minimize poor design, but you and I both know how expensive, unwieldy,
> and difficult that is. It's an imperfect system. Doesn't justify RLRers at
> all.

Badly placed signal faces, bad light timing, etc and so forth can all
lead to red light running. The fact that the 'punish the *******s'
mentality doesn't recognize a defect doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There is one signal light I nearly ran a red on in chicago because it's
in the middle of the bridge and the signal face is mounted so high that
it's above the top of the windshield on the approach. It's not visible
to me unless I scrunch down in my seat and look up. There was the one
where I got the ticket for not stopping completely for a right on red
where signal faces for multiple directions are visible. I saw a green
signal and proceeded with my usual care and I knew the cop was there on
top of it all.

But then again, it seems neither the cops nor the courts nor most of the
population understands or cares about proper engineering or the laws on
the books requiring it. IL law requires the MUTCD be followed, the court
doesn't care about government following the law.